61–70 of 87 posts
I just don't see smaller magazine publishers sustaining the production of video. It's extremely high cost relative to other content and they don't have the traffic or niche audience required to gather the ad revenue to support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do the same thing people do to get attention for their text blog - the usual publicity approaches.
Not sure if you’ve noticed, but the blogosphere ain’t what it once was.
The world needs a WordPress for video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Publishing is part of the problem. We need to be able to go from Final Cut Pro to web. It has the capability to deliver HTTP Live Streaming, but that's not supported in all browsers. Everything from between "Final Cut Pro" and "Web Browser" needs to be standardized with easy-to-use self-publishing capabilities. (The CDN can take care of the bandwidth)
All browsers (but Opera mini) support video [0]. There are standards all around video. The challenge is not in getting video from Final Cut Pro to a web browser, the challenge is to do it efficiently, economically with a good user experience. CDN is the tiniest part of the whole process. Each video has to be re-encoded based on the device and network capabilities. CDN can the deliver anything anywhere. Also good vide…
I mean, Final Cut pro can export videos to Facebook and YouTube, but to export on your own media site is where everything starts to fall apart in terms of user experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…
> clone of YouTube in way under a year. Probably because some aspects of computer science/website engineering are not entirely nailed down and years of experience still count for something.
I've always seen Youtube as much higher quality than facebook. More than being accessible to everybody regardless of being logged in or not, their players have always been top notch for me. I've always associated Facebook videos with low quality content that I see scrolling through a newsfeed, and FB video has always been noticeably buggier than Youtube. The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another fea…
> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…
They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.
I really hate these news sites that overload their sites with graphics like images and videos. I long for simple websites that dont have auto playing videos that are always on some corner even when scrolled down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The focus of Youtube is video whereas video is just another feature of FB. Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects, considering Google's apparent complete lack of skills or motivation in UI usability, and discoverability/search of all things) clone of YouTube in way under a year. And, they have a massive engaged social…
> FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year. They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.
I just don't see smaller magazine publishers sustaining the production of video. It's extremely high cost relative to other content and they don't have the traffic or niche audience required to gather the ad revenue to support it.
It’s getting cheaper and cheaper to produce videos these days though. We’re kind of in the place that graphic design was in 10 years ago. As the equipment gets better, software more powerful, and generations of younger folks with substantial knowledge in the subject, the costs are going to go way down.
"...the shows are weekly, focus on evergreen topics and run up to eight minutes per episode..." That's __obviously__ not a good fit for FB. Nothing more. Nothing less. To say anything more means someone has an ax to grind. Perhaps the title oft his article should be: "Full Disclosure; Google Paid Me to Write This"?
I don't think I understand. Is it the 8 min part that isn't a good fit for FB?
One is a social network. The other a media platform. The expectations and usage of each is different. Put another way...you host it on YT and market it on FB, __not__ the other way around.
For a brand to pick the best platform for their __particular__ content is not new and noteworthy. That is, it's not news. It's fluff. It's clickbait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FB's weak links in my estimation are the stubborn insistence to have everything under Facebook.com (rather than a sibling site), and the trust they've lost in the last year. They have WhatsApp and Instagram under different names.
Both are acquisitions.